Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/19794/2026 on 4 November 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.19794 of 2026
Decided on: 4th November, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Neena Gupta
…..Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others
.....Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Oshin Anand Chauhan, Advocate
vice Mr. Yudhbir Singh Thakur,
Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2.
Mr. Bhupinder Pathania, Advocate, for respondents No.3 and 4. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Bhupinder Pathania, learned counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of the respective respondents.
2. Petitioner’s grievance is that her representations (Annexure P-4 Colly.) seeking applicability of Anil Kumar
1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. High Court of H.P. ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 03:18:16 :::CIS
2 Kohli vs. State of H.P. & others2 have not been decided till date by the respondents/competent authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be content in case the respondents/competent authority(s) are directed to consider and decide the aforesaid representation in accordance with law within a fixed-time schedule. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents are not averse to this prayer.
3. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/ competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioner (Annexure P-4 Colly.) in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner.
The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua November 04, 2026
Judge Mukesh
2 CWPOA No.83 of 2020, decided on 28.03.2024 High Court of H.P. ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 03:18:16 :::CIS